REFERENCES

Aeppel, T. (1995 October 16). Angry landowners turn public paths into unhappy trails. Wall Street Journal,eastern ed., p. A1+. Aizenman, N. (1997 October). The case for more regulation. Washington Monthly,p. 16-21. Alaska Railroad Corporation and the Municipality of Anchorage. (1987 August 24). Permit for Coastal Bike Trail, Amended and Restated.Anchorage, AK. Alta Transportation Consulting. (2001). Union Pacific Railroad Trail Feasibility Study. Prepared for the City of Cupertino, CA. San Rafael, CA. Alta Transportation Consulting. (2000). Mojave River Greenway, Working Papers 1 and 2. Prepared for the City of Victorville, CA. San Rafael, CA. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.Washington,DC. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1998). Rails-with- Trails Survey.Washington,DC. American National Standards Institute. (1991). American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting, IESNA RP-8-00.New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. Belluck, P. (1999 March 18). Crash inquiry focuses on tire tracks. New York Times,p.A16. Belluck, P. (1999 March 17). 13 killed as Amtrak train collides with truck in Illinois. New York Times,p.A1+. Beneficial Designs. (1999 July). Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access: Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices, Part I.Report #FHWA-HEP-99-006. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. Benson,M. (1998). Defending the defensible: A railroad grade crossing accident. (In) Issues in Railway Law: Limiting Carrier Liability and Litigating the Railroad Crossing Case.Chicago: American Bar Association. Black, M. (1999). At-grade crossings: Innovation, Safety, Sophisticated New Technology. RT+s Railway Track and Structure: Industry News. Internet reference.

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 101 REFERENCES

Booth, H.J. (1892). A Treatise on the Law of Street Railways.Philadelphia: T. and J.W. Johnson and Co. Canadian Pacific Railway. (2002). Recreation Path Guidelines Canada.Toronto. Canadian Pacific Railway Police Service. (2000). Crime and Trespass Prevention Design Guidelines.Toronto. Canadian Pacific Railway Police Service. (2000). Trespass Prevention Strategy.Toronto. Centers for Disease Control. (1999). Injuries among railroad trespassers in Georgia, 1990–1996. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, 48(25):537-541. Chisholm, G. (1999 July). Light rail service: vehicular and pedestrian safety. Research Results Digest,p.A13. City of Ann Arbor. (1989 May 15). Resolution No. 225-426: Resolution to Approve Agreement with Conrail for Construction of the Gallup Park Bikeway.Ann Arbor, MI. City of Portland and Union Pacific Railroad Company. (2000 January 19). Ordinance 174094: Lease and Operating Agreement.(Agreement allowing the city to construct and maintain a walkway on the steel bridge, owned by the railroad. Portland, OR.) City of Seattle Engineering Department. (1987). Evaluation of the Burke-Gilman Trail’s Effect on Property Values and Crime.Seattle: Office for Planning. City of Solana Beach and North San Diego County Transit Development Board. (1998). Draft Agreement for the Use of Portions of Railroad Right-of-Way.SolanaBeac h, CA. Clarke, D., A. Chatterjee, S. Rutner, and H. Sink. (1996). Intermodal freight transporta­ tion and highway safety. Transportation,p.97-110. Conservation Fund (The), and Colorado State Parks State Trails Program. (1995). The Effect of Greenways on Property Values and Public Safety.Denver. Dallas Area Rapid Transit and the City of Southlake, the City of Colleyville, and the City of North Richland Hills. (1998 September 30). Municipal Corridor Use License.Dallas. Doolittle, J., and E. Porter. (1994). Synthesis of Transit Practice 4: Integration of Bicycles and Transit.Washington,DC: Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board. Eaken, A., and J. Hart. (2001). Tunnels on Trails.Washington DC: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. English, J.W. (1986). Liability Aspects of Bikeway Designation.Washington,DC: Bicycle Federation of America. Federal Highway Administration. (2002). Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.Washington,DC. Federal Highway Administration. (2000). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 2000), Part 10, Controls for Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings. Washington, DC.

102 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned REFERENCES

Federal Highway Administration. (2000). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 2000), Part 9, Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities.Washington,DC. Federal Highway Administration. (2000). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD 2000), Part 8, Traffic Controls for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.Washington, DC. Federal Highway Administration. (1993). The National Bicycling and Walking Study: Transportation Choices for a Changing America, and Case Studies 1-25.Washington,DC. Federal Highway Administration. (1986). Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook. Washington, DC. Federal Highway Administration. (1979). Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Surfaces, Implementation Package #79-8.Washington,DC. Federal Railroad Administration. (1999). Railroad Safety Statistics, Annual Report 1998. Washington, DC. Federal Railroad Administration. (1998). Model Legislation for Railroad Trespass and Railroad Vandalism.Washington,DC. Federal Railroad Administration. (1998). A Working Outline of the Major Issues Related to Multi-Use Recreational Trails Located Near Active Rail Lines.(Work in progress of the Rails-with-Trails Task Force initiated at a pre-conference meeting of the 1998 International Trails and Greenways Conference in San Diego, CA). Austin: Carolyn Cook, Crossing Safety, Railroad Commission of Texas (unpublished). Federal Railroad Administration. (1997). Rails-with-Trails Safety Workshop Summary Report.Washington,DC. Federal Railroad Administration. (1997). Trespasser Bulletin, No. 5, Calendar Year 1996. Washington, DC. Federal Railroad Administration. (1997). Highway-Rail Crossing Accident/Incident and Inventory Bulletin, No. 19, Calendar Year 1996.Washington,DC. Federal Railroad Administration. (1997). Accident/Incident Bulletin, No. 165, Calendar Year 1996.Washington,DC. Federal Railroad Administration. (1994). Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan Support and Proposals.Washington,DC. Federal Transit Administration. (1997). Lessons Learned Program, #29, Commuter Rail Safety - Educating the Public.Washington,DC. Federal Transit Administration. (circa 1994). Lessons Learned Program, #2, Grade Crossing Safety Improvement Project.Washington,DC. Ferster, A., and M. Jones. (1997). Coastal Rail Trail (California), Project Study Report: Addressing Liability of Rails-with-Trails.Washington,DC :Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Five Star Trail - Terms of Agreement with Railroad. (1996). Greensburg, PA: Westmoreland County Bureau of Parks and Recreation. Great Lakes Spine Trail: Deed of Sale, 87476. (1994 December 9). Spirit Lake, IA: Dickinson County Conservation Board.

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 103 REFERENCES

Howser, B.M. (1997 April). Putting value on rail-trails. Public Management, p. 4-9. Hubbell, C. (1988). Some thoughts concerning the preparation and trial of a railroad crossing case from the plaintiff ’s perspective. (In) Issues in Railway Law: Limiting Carrier Liability and Litigating the Railroad Crossing Case. Chicago: American Bar Association. Jacobsen, E. (1997). California Operation Lifesaver. (In) Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety, Seattle, WA.College Station: Texas Transportation Institute. Jones, M., et al. (1999). Rails-with-Trails: A Best Practices Informational Report.Draft, written on behalf of Institute for Transportation Engineers Ad-Hoc Committee on Rails-with-Trails. San Rafael, CA: Alta Transportation Consulting. Kacir, K., H. Hawkins, R. Benz, and M. Obermeyer. (1995). Guidelines for the use of flash­ ing operation at signalized intersections. ITE Journal, 65:26-31. Kraich, P. (1997). Rails-with-Trails: Sharing Corridors for Transportation and Recreation. Washington, DC: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Kuhlman, R.S. (1986). Killer Roads: From Crash to Verdict.Charlottesville,VA: The Michie Company. (Ch. 11). Law, W.J. (1999). Problem Analysis Report Recreational Trail Use.Toronto: Canadian Pacific Railway Police Service, Community Services Unit. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the City of San Fernando. (1997 January 9). License Agreement, File #RVAL008562.(Allowing use of a parcel of land for a bicycle/pedestrian trail). Los Angeles. Luczak, M. (1999 July). Beating back the ‘beat-the-train’ brigade. Railway Age,p.37-40. Maher, M. (2000). Rails-with-Trails: The Western Australian Experience.Como, Australia: Transplan Pty. Ltd. Maine Department of Transportation. (2000). Policy on Design Standards for Pedestrian Trails within a State-Owned Rail Corridor. Augusta, ME. Mathews, A. (1998 February 20). Railroads take heat for pedestrian fatalities. Wall Street Journal, p. B1+. Mathews, C., B. Williamson, and C. Rylander. (1998 March). Texas Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Facts for 1996.Austin: Railroad Commission of Texas. Miller, L. (1998 October). High-tech at the crossing. Railway Age,p.57-58. Moore, R.L., and K. Barthlow. (1998). The Economic Impacts and Uses of Long-Distance Trails.Washington,DC: National Park Service. Moore, R.L., A. Graefe, R.G. Telson, and E. Porter. (1992). The Impacts of Rail-Trails: A Study of the Users and Nearby Property Owners From Three Trails.Washington,DC: National Park Service.

104 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned REFERENCES

Morris, H. (2000). Rail-Trails and Liability: A Primer on Trail-Related Liability Issues and Risk Management Techniques.Washington,DC :Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Morris, H. (2000). Rails-with-Trails: Design, Management, and Characteristics of 61 Trails Along Active Rail Lines.Washington, DC:Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. National Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse. (1995). Economic and Social Benefits of Off-Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, Technical Assistance Series 2.(Technical Brief ). Washington, DC. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). (1981). Legal Implications of Highway Department’s Failure to Comply with Design, Safety, or Maintenance Guidelines,Research Results Digest 129.Washington,DC: Transportation Research Board. Nellis, A.J. (1904). Street Railroad Accident Law.Albany,NY: M.Bender. Neuman, P. (1993). Risks on the rails. Communications of the ACM, 36:130. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission. (1993). Impact Assessment of the Virginia Railway Express Commuter Rail on Land Use Development Patterns in Northern Virginia.Report #DOT-T-95-18. Washington, DC: U.S. Technology Sharing Program, Department of Transportation. Oregon Department of Transportation. (1995). Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Salem. Otis, S., and R. Machemehl. (1999). An Analysis of Pedestrian Signalization in Suburban Areas, Research Report #SWUTC/99/472840-00065-1.Austin,TX: Southwest Region University Transportation Center. Patterson, C.S. (1886). Railway Accident Law, The Liability of Railways for the Injuries to the Person.Philadelphia: T. and J. W. Johnson and Co. Pelletier, A. (1997). Deaths among railroad trespassers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 297:1064 -1066. Pien, W. (1996). Trail Intersection Design Guidelines.Tallahassee:Florida Department of Transportation. PKF Consulting. (1994). Analysis of Economic Impacts of the Northern Central Rail Trail. (Prepared for Maryland Greenways Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources). San Francisco. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. (2000). Economic Benefits of Rail-Trails.Washington,DC. Richards, D. (1997 November 3). Railroad problems in Texas getting worse before better. Chemical Market Reporter,p.7+. Ries, R. (1997). The winds of change in highway-rail grade crossing safety. Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety, Seattle, WA.College Station: Texas Transportation Institute.

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 105 REFERENCES

Riley, V. (1997). Southern California Regional Rail Authority. Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference on Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety, Seattle, WA.College Station: Texas Transportation Institute. Roble, E.H. (1998 May). Knowledge is power. Railway Age,p.59-61. Roop, S., J. Warner, D. Rosa, and R.W. Dickinson. (1998). The Railroad System of Texas: A Component of the State and National Transportation Infrastructure.College Station: Texas Transportation Institute. Russel, D. (1999). Mobile Chernobyls. E Magazine, X(II):14-15. Ryan, K.L., and J.A. Winterich. (Eds.). (1993). Secrets of Successful Rail-Trails. Washington, DC: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. SamTrans. (1997). Caltrain Right-of-Way Fatalities, 1992-1996.San Carlos, CA. Schulte, C. (2001). General system and rail transit common corridor safety. (In) Proceedings of the 2001 Rail Transit Conference.Washington,DC: American Public Transportation Association. Sifferman J., and R. Koppa. (1996). Americans with Disabilities Act: Considerations for Sensory and Mentally Impaired Individuals in Public Accommodation.College Station: Texas Transportation Institute. Silver Creek Bike Trail (MN): Application for ISTEA Enhancement Funding. (1993). Rochester, MN: City of Rochester Public Works Department. Strauss, C.H., and B.E. Lord. (1996). Economic Impact of Ghost Town Trail in the Indiana and Cambria Counties Region.State College: Pennsylvania State University. Three Rivers Heritage Trail Master Plan, Baldwin Borough Segment.(Draft). (1999). Greensburg, PA: Westmoreland County, Bureau of Parks and Recreation. Transportation Research Board. (1995). Safety and Human Performance.Transportation Research Record, C. 2 No. 1502.Washington,DC: National Academy Press. Volpe National Transportation Safety Center. (1999). Assessment of Potential Aerodynamic Effect on Personnel and Equipment in Proximity to High-Speed Train Operations.Washington,DC: Federal Railroad Administration. Wait,S. (1998). Rails with Trails.Akron,OH: Wheeling Corporation. West Orange Rail-Trail Master Plan. (1996). Orlando, FL: Orange County Department of Parks and Recreation. Wilner, F. (1998). Asleep at the throttle? Traffic World, 254(5):14.

106 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned LEGAL REFERENCES

R.P. Davis, Annotation, Joinder as defendants, in tort action based on condition of sidewalk or highway, of municipal corporation and abutting property owner or occupant, 15 A.L.R. 2d 1292, 1293 (1951). D.E. Evins, Annotation, Liability for injury or damage caused by collision with portion of load projecting beyond rear or side of motor vehicle or trailer, 21 A.L.R. 3rd 371 (1968). M.C. Dransfield, Annotation, Railroad’s duty to children walking longitudinally along rail­ road tracks or right of way, 31 A.L.R. 2d 789 (1953). Wade R. Habeeb,Annotation, Railroad’s liability for injury to or death of child on moving train other than as paying or proper passenger, 35 A.L.R. 3rd 9 (1971). James L. Isham, Annotation, Validit y and construction of statute or ordinance limiting the kinds or amount of actual damages recoverable in tort action against governmental unit, 43 A.L.R. 4th 19 (1986). R.D. Hursh, Annotation, Duty and liability of municipality as regards barriers for protection of adult pedestrians who may unintentionally deviate from street or highway into mar­ ginal or external hazards, 44 A.L.R. 2d 633 (1955). Robin Cheryl Miller,Annotation, Effect of statute limiting landowner’s liability for personal injury to recreational user, 47 A.L.R. 4th 262 (1986) Ronald V. Sinesi, Annotation, Government tort liability for injury to roller skater allegedly caused by sidewalk or street defects, 58 A.L.R. 4th 1197 (1987). L.S. Tellier, Annotation, Contributory negligence of adult struck by train while walking or standing beside railroad track, 63 A.L.R. 2d 1226 (1959).

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 107 LEGAL REFERENCES

James L. Isham, Annotation, State and local government liability for injury or death of bicyclist due to defect or obstruction in public bicycle path, 68 A.L.R. 4th 204 (1989). W.E. Snipley, Annotation, Duty to take affirmative action to avoid injury to trespasser in position of peril through no fault of landowner, 70 A.L.R. 3d 1125 (1976). C.C. Marvel, Annotation, Liability of municipality for injury or death from defects or obstructions in sidewalk to one riding thereon on bicycle, tricycle, or similar vehicle,88 A.L.R. 2d 1423 (1963). D.A. Cox, Annotation, Obstruction of sidewalk as proximate cause of injury to pedestrian forced to go into street and there injured, 93 A.L.R. 2d 1187 (1964). Danaya C. Wright, Private rights and public ways: property disputes and rails-to-trails in Indiana, 30 Ind. L. Rev. 723 (1997). Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. No. 2028 v. Super. Ct. of San Joaquin County, 190 Cal. Rptr. 494 (1983). Leonakis v. State, 511 N.Y.S. 2d 119 (1987). Lovell v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R., 457 F.2d 1009 (6th Cir. 1972). Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Ahrens, 179 A. 169, 171-73 (Md. 1935). Powell v. Union Pac. RR. Co., 655 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir. 1981). Watterson v. Commonwealth, 18 Pa. D.&C.3d 276 (1980). Status of one at railroad crossing who has walked or intends to walk along tracks, 9 A.L.R. 1322 (1920). State of weather as affecting liability for injury to one struck by train or street car, 20 A.L.R. 1064 (1922). Liability of operator of logging road or other private railroad for injury to person on track, 46 A.L.R. 1076 (1927). Liability of railroad company for injury to trespassers or licensees other than employees or passengers struck by object projecting, or thrown, from a passing train, 112 A.L.R. 850 (1938). Liability for death or injury as a result of suction from passing train, 149 A.L.R. 907 (1944). Duty of railroad toward persons using private crossing or commonly used footpath over or along railroad tracks, 167 A.L.R. 1253 (1947).

108 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX A: Definitions

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999): Provides information and guidelines for the planning, design, and maintenance of bicycle facilities. The AASHTO Bike Guide provides information to help accommodate bicycle traffic in a way that is sen­ sitive to bicyclists and other roadway users. It also provides specific information about the design of shared use paths, railroad grade crossings, and path roadway intersections. Centerline: An imaginary line midpoint between the track rails that conforms to the geometry of that track. “Centerline” often is used in reference to the nearest track to an RWT when discussing such issues as setback and separation. Class I Railroad: A railroad with annual gross operating revenue in excess of $250 mil­ lion based on 1991 dollars. Class II Railroad: Railroads with an annual gross operating revenue of between $250 million and $20 million. Class III Railroad: Railroads with gross operating revenue of less than $20 million. These include short-line and light-density railroads. Commuter Rail: Urban passenger train service for travel between a central city and ad­ jacent suburbs, excluding rapid rail transit and light rail service. Department of Transportation: Established by an Act of Congress in 1966, the U.S. De­ partment of Transportation (USDOT) works to build a safe transportation system. The USDOT includes the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and Surface Transportation Board. Excursion Trains: Generally, trains used by a private enterprise catering to the leisure or tourism market, such as dinner trains or tourist trains to an historical destination. Federal Highway Administration: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) coor­ dinates highway transportation programs in cooperation with States and other partners to enhance the country’s safety, economic vitality, quality of life, and the environment. Major program areas include the Federal-Aid Highway Program, which provides Federal financial assistance to the States to construct and improve the National Highway System, urban and rural roads, bridges, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 109 APPENDIX A

Federal Railroad Administration: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) pro­ motes safe and environmentally sound rail transportation. FRA sets and enforces safety standards for track, signals, motive power and equipment, hazardous materials, operating practices, and highway-rail crossings. The FRA conducts research and development proj­ ects to support its safety mission and enhance the railroad system as a national trans­ portation resource. FRA also administers public education campaigns addressing highway-rail grade crossing safety and the danger of trespassing on rail property. Federal Transit Administration: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) assists in developing improved mass transportation systems for cities and communities nation­ wide. Through its grant programs, FTA helps plan, build, and operate transit systems with convenience, cost, and accessibility in mind. Fixed Transit: Transit service with fixed guideways includes heavy and light transit rail. In general usage, fixed transit also is known as rapid rail, rapid transit rail, transit mode, or transit railway. Heavy Rail: Exclusive rights-of-way, multi-car trains, high speed rapid acceleration, so­ phisticated signaling, and high platform loading characterize fixed transit heavy rail. In general terms, heavy rail also is known as subway, elevated railway, or metropolitan rail­ way (metro). Light Rail: Light rail transit may be exclusive or shared rights-of-way, high or low plat­ form loading, multi-car trains or single cars, automated or manually operated. In gen­ eral usage, light rail includes trolley cars, streetcars, and tramways. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices: The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) provides standards and guidelines for traffic control devices that reg­ ulate, warn, and guide road users along the highways and byways in the United States. The FHWA published the most recent edition, The Millennium Edition, in December of 2000, with revisions in December 2001. Part 8 provides guidelines for signs, signals, markings, and other warning devices at all highway-rail grade crossings. Part 9 provides standards for bicycle facilities including on-road treatments and shared use paths. Part 10 provides standards and guidelines for highway-light rail grade crossings. See http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-millennium_12.28.01.htm. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sets and enforces safety and performance standards for motor vehicles and equipment; helps States and local communities reduce the threat of impaired drivers; promotes the use of safety belts, child safety seats, and air bags; provides con­ sumer information on motor vehicle safety topics; conducts research on driver behavior and traffic safety; and promotes traffic safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Railbanking: The preservation of otherwise abandoned railroad easements for possible future railroad activity by interposition of interim trail use. Rail-Trail: Usually refers to a trail developed on an abandoned or converted railroad line (a rail-to-trail), where there is no active rail service; however, it may be used to refer to any trail associated with active rail or rail property, e.g., RWT.

110 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX A

Rail-with-Trail (RWT): Any shared-use path that is located on or directly adjacent to an active railroad or fixed route transit corridor. Setback: The lateral distance between the centerline of the “nearest track” (that track lo­ cated closest to the RWT or other physical feature under consideration) to the nearest edge of the trail or to the separation feature (fence, wall, etc.). Separation: A feature, such as fencing, wall, vegetation, body of water, or vertical elevation difference, that is found, placed, or used to separate a railroad track or railroad corridor and an RWT, sufficient to prevent or discourage access to an active rail right-of-way by trail users. Shared use path: A trail that is physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an inde­ pendent right-of-way. Shared use paths may be used by bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, runners and other nonmotorized users. Short Line Railroad: See Class III Railroad. Trespasser: A person who enters or remains upon property in the possession of another without a privilege to do so, created by the possessor’s consent or otherwise.

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 111 APPENDIX B: State-by-State Matrix of Applicable Laws and Statutes Provided by Andrea Ferster, Esq., as of 2002

This matrix is intended to present the state of the law as of the year 2002. Every effort has been made to assure accuracy in the information contained in this matrix as provided by Andrea Ferster, Esq. However, due to the broad scope of this project and the fluid nature of state statutory law, the Department of Transportation cannot guarantee complete accuracy of the material presented. For more detailed and up-to-date information, the reader is encouraged to review the relevant state statutes directly.

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 113 APPENDIX B

State-by-State matrix of applicable laws and statutes

Recreational Use Trail, Rails-to-Trails Program, Recreational Government Tort Railroad State Statute (RUS) Trails System, or Similar Statute Liability Act Fencing Laws

Alabama Ala. Code Ala. Code § 41-9-62 et seq. (2000) Ala. Code § 37-2-89 (2000.) § 35-15-1 (1975) Ala. Code § 11-93-1 et seq. (2000) – RR liable if Pub. Serv. Commission has deemed fence necessary and livestock injured by unfenced right-of- way; does not apply to injury to dogs Alaska Alaska Stat. Alaska Stat. § 42.40.420 (Michie 2000.) Alaska Stat. §§ 09.50.250, § 09.65.200 – allows a municipality or the State to -.300 (Michie 2000.) (Michie 2000) petition to use railroad land, including – limited to along active railroads for public use, undeveloped lands including trails. Must be established that the use will not create a safety hazard, and the municipality or State must enter into an agreement to indemnify the railroad. Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820 § 33-1551 (West 2000.) et seq. (2000.) Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. Ark. Code Ann. § 22-4-401 et seq.(Michie 2000.) Ark. Code Ann. § 21-9-201 et seq. §§ 18-11-301 to – Trails System Statute (Michie 2000.) -307 (Michie 2000.) – no liability provision California Cal. Civ. Code Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 5070 et seq. Cal. Gov’t Code § 810-996.6 Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 846 (West 2000.) (Deering 2000.) et seq.(West 2000.) § 7626 et seq. (West 2000.) – Recreational Trails Act – RR liable for injury to live­ – limits liability for adjacent property owners stock, domestic animals injured due to unfenced right-of-way Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-11-101 et seq. (2000.) Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 24-10-101 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-41-101 to -106 – Recreational Trails System Act of 1971 et seq. (West 2000.) § 40-27-102 (West 2000.) (West 2000.) – no liability provision -RR liable if livestock injured by unfenced right-of-way Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 4-140 Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 52-557(f )-(k) et seq. (West 2000.) § 13b-299 (West 2000.) (West 2000.) – administrative claims or – Commissioner of procedure Transportation directs where and when RR Co.’s should erect and maintain fences Delaware Del. Code Ann. tit. Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 4001 Del. Code Ann. tit. 7, §§ 5901–5907 et seq. (2000.) 2, § 1811 (2000.) (2000.) – State and local – RR liable for injury to live­ stock if injured on unfenced right-of-way

District of Columbia D.C. Code Ann. § 1-1201 et seq. (2000.)

114 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX B

State-by-State matrix of applicable laws and statutes (cont’d.)

Recreational Use Trail, Rails-to-Trails Program, Recreational Government Tort Railroad State Statute (RUS) Trails System, or Similar Statute Liability Act Fencing Laws

Florida Fla. Stat. ch. 375.251 Fla. Stat. ch. 260.011 et seq. (2000.) Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.28 (2000.) – Recreational Trails System Statute et seq. (West 2000.) – § 260.012(4) of the Recreational Trails – Tort Claims Act System Chapter makes the Recreational Use Statute (RUS) – § 375.251 is applicable to the Recreational Trails System Chapter Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §§ Ga. Code Ann. § 12-3-110 et seq. (2000.) Ga. Code Ann. § 36-33-1 51-3-20 to -26 – Scenic Trails Act et seq. (2000.) (2000.) – § 12-3-116 limits liability for property owners whose land is traversed by trails system

Hawaii Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 198D-7 Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 662-2 520-1 to -8 (2000.) to -7.5 (Michie 2000.) et seq. (Michie 2000.) – Statewide Trail and Access System – § 198D-7 requires review by the State of the legal issues relating to trails, including exposures to liability for the State, counties, and private landowners, and strategies to reduce or limit that liability exposure – § 198D-7.5 permits the State to enter into agreements to defend and indemnify owners of public or private land to further the purposes of the chapter (e.g., developing a trails system)

Idaho Idaho Code §§ 36­ Idaho Code § 67-4236 (2000.) Idaho Code § 6-901 et seq. (2000.) Idaho Code §§ 62-1201, 1601 to -1604 – indemnification of owners of land adjacent 62-406 (2000.) (2000.) to trails – RR liable if livestock – allows State to indemnify the owner of private injured by unfenced land adjacent to trail, for damage caused by trail right-of-way users, for which the owner was unable to recover from the user who caused the damage

Illinois 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. 20 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 862/1et seq. 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/8 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. Ann. 65/1-31 to -37 (West 2000.) (West 2000.) 5/18c-7504 (West 2000.) (West 2000.) – Recreational Trails of Illinois Act – Court of Claims Jurisdiction – RR liable if livestock – State injured by unfenced 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/1-101 right-of-way (West 2000.) – local gov’t units

Indiana Ind. Code §14-2-6-3 Ind. Code Ann. § 8-4.5-5-1 et seq. (Michie 2000.) Ind. Code Ann. § 34-6-2-34 Ind. Code Ann. § 8-4-33-1 (2000.) – Recreational Trails Program et seq. (West 2000.) (West 2000.) – § 8-4.5-5-5 designates abandoned railroad – Indiana Tort Claims Act – RR liable if livestock corridors as eligible for grant program to create injured by unfenced recreational trails right-of-way – § 8-4.5-6-5, Liability for injury; relieves property owner of “duty of care” for recreational trail user that would otherwise be owed

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 115 APPENDIX B

State-by-State matrix of applicable laws and statutes (cont’d.)

Recreational Use Trail, Rails-to-Trails Program, Recreational Government Tort Railroad State Statute (RUS) Trails System, or Similar Statute Liability Act Fencing Laws

Iowa Iowa Code Ann. §§ Iowa Code § 465B.1 et seq. (2000.) Iowa Code Ann. §§ 669.1 Iowa Code Ann. § 111C.1 to -.7 – Recreational Trails Statute to -.24 (West 2000.) 327G.3 (2000.) (West 2000.) – no liability provision – Iowa Tort Claims Act – RR liable if livestock – state injured by unfenced Iowa Code Ann. §§ 670.1 right-of-way to -.13 (West 2000.) – Tort Liability of Governmental Subdivisions Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 58-3211 et seq. (2000.) Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 75-6101 §§ 58-3201 to – Recreational Trails Statute to -6115 (2000.) -3207 (2000.) – § 58-3212 provides an extensive list of duties for trail managers – § 58-3214 provides that an adjacent property owner has “no duty of care” to any person using a recreational trail, except where an injury is a direct result of negligence or willful or wanton misconduct Kentucky Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 147A.250 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44.070 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § §§ 150.645, 411.190 (Banks-Baldwin 2000.) et seq. (Banks-Baldwin 2000.) 256.110 (Michie 2000.) (Michie 2000.) Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 277.402 et seq. – requires RR and adjoining (Banks-Baldwin 2000.) property owner to construct – RUS § 411.190 defines owner as including the and maintain a good lawful possessor of a “reversionary , or easement interest.” fence – The trespass statute, §511.090, was amended to include the following: “(5) Private land adjoining a railtrail that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed shall be presumed to be land where notice against trespassing has been given by the owner of the land, and a person utilizing the railtrail shall be presumed to lack privilege or license to enter upon that land unless the person has permission from an adjoining landowner to do so.” Louisiana La. Rev. Stat. Ann. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 56:1781 et seq. (West 2000.) La. Const., art. XII, § 10. tit. 9, §§ 2791, – program to establish rails-to-trails 2795 (West 2000.) – § 1785 of the statute transfers ownership and all legal rights and obligations to trail administrator, and the railroad or corporation shall be relieved of all responsibilities and legal obligations, unless agreed otherwise through contractual obligations Maine Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1892 (West 2000.) Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit.14, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. tit.14, § 159-A – Trails System Statute § 8101 et seq. (West 2000.) 23, § 6021 (West 2000.) (West 2000.) – no liability provision – Tort Claims Act – RR liable if livestock injured by unfenced right-of-way

116 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX B

State-by-State matrix of applicable laws and statutes (cont’d.)

Recreational Use Trail, Rails-to-Trails Program, Recreational Government Tort Railroad State Statute (RUS) Trails System, or Similar Statute Liability Act Fencing Laws

Maryland Md.Code Ann., Nat. Md. Code Ann., Nat. Res. I. § 5-1010 (2000.) Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t Res. I §§ 5-1101 to – abandoned railroad corridor as trails § 12-101 et seq. (2000.) -1108 (2000.) – establishes program to convert abandoned – Tort Claims Act railroad corridors into recreational trails – State gov’t – no liability provision Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc.§ 5-401 et seq. (2000.) – local gov’t Massachusetts Mass. Gen. Laws Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 258, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. Ann. ch. 21, § 17C § 1 et seq. (Law. Co-op. 2000.) 160, § 93 (West 2000.) (West 2000.) – Tort Claims Act – RR liable if livestock owned by adjacent property owner injured by unfenced right-of-way Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.72101 et seq. (2000.) Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. Ann. § 324.73301 – Michigan Trailways Act 691.1401 to -.1415 (West 2000.) § 462.325 (West 2000.) (West 2000.) – § 72105(a) provides that volunteer groups – RR liable if livestock injured – RUS protects the may adopt trailways or rail-to-trails segments, by unfenced right-of-way owner, tenant, or and that volunteers will be granted the same lessee of land used immunity from civil liability as a State to enter or exit a employee while they are working on an public trail or trail “adopt-a-trail” project covered by the Trailways Act § 721

Minnesota Minn. Stat. Ann. Minn. Stat. § 222.63 (2000.) Minn. Stat. Ann. § 3.736 Minn. Stat. Ann. § 219.31 §§ 87.01 to -.03 – establishes rail bank program for public use et seq. (West 2000.) (West 2000.) (West 2000.) Minn. Stat. § 84.029 (2000.) – Tort Claims Act, – RR liable if livestock or – permits the State to acquire land, including Minn. Stat. Ann. § 466.01 children who could not scale abandoned railroad rights-of-way, for trails et seq. (West 2000.) legal fence injured by – no liability provision unfenced right-of-way Mississippi Miss. Code Ann. Miss. Code Ann. § 55-25-1 et seq. (2000.) Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-46-1 §§ 89-2-1 to -7, – Rails-to-Trails Recreational District Statute to -16 (2000.) 89-2-21 to -27 – no liability provision (2000.) Missouri Mo. Ann. Stat. §§ Mo. Rev. Stat. § 258.100 (2000.) Mo. Ann. Stat. § 537.600 Mo. Ann. Stat. § 537.345 to -.348 – trails have civil immunity et seq. (West 2000.) 389.650 (West 2000.) (West 2000.) – specifically covers railroad rights-of-way – RR liable if livestock injured acquired by State for use as a recreational trail by unfenced right-of-way – provides immunity from liability for adjacent property owners for injuries to person or property if the person entered from the trail; does not apply if person on land is invitee, or the injury was caused by an intentional, unlawful, willful, or wanton act

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 117 APPENDIX B

State-by-State matrix of applicable laws and statutes (cont’d.)

Recreational Use Trail, Rails-to-Trails Program, Recreational Government Tort Railroad State Statute (RUS) Trails System, or Similar Statute Liability Act Fencing Laws

Montana Mont. Code Ann. Mont. Code Ann. § 2-9-101 §§ 70-16-301 to et seq. (2000.) -302 (2000.) – MT Comprehensive State Insurance Plan and Tort Claims Act – State and local Mont.Code Ann. § 7-1-4125 et seq. (2000.) – municipal immunity is waived Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37-1002 et seq. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-8, 209 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 74-601 §§ 37-1001 to -1008 (Michie 2000.)– Recreational Trails Statute et seq. (2000.) (2000.) (Michie 2000.) – § 37-1012, Responsibility for fences. The Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-902 – RR liable if livestock injured Game and Park Commission shall “have the et seq. (2000.) by unfenced right-of-way same responsibility as a railroad as provided – Political Subdivisions in §74-601 to 74-602.” Tort Claims Act Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. § Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41.031 41.510 (2000.) et seq. (Michie 2000.)

New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 228:60-a et seq. (2000.) N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 541-B: 1 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 212.34 (2000.) – Railroad Right-of-Way Statute et seq. (2000.) § 373:30 (2000.) – § 228:60-c allows the State to enter into – administrative claims – RR liable if livestock of agreements for the use of railroad rights-of-way against the State adjacent property owner that relieve the landowner from civil liability – political subdivisions injured by unfenced for personal injury or property damage for excluded right-of-way the period of the agreement New Jersey N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ N.J. Stat. Ann. § 13:8-30 et seq. (West 2000.) N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:1-1 et seq. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:42A-1 to -7 – Trails System Act (West 2000.) 48:12-46 (West 2000.) (West 2000.) – no liability provision – Tort Claims Act – RR liable if livestock injured by unfenced right-of-way New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ N.M. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-3 et seq. (Michie 2000.) N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-4-1 to -27 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 77-16-16 16-3-9, 17-4-7 – State Trails System Statute (Michie 2000.) (Michie 2000.) (Michie 2000.) – § 16-3-9 limits liability for landowner who – Tort Claims Act – RR liable if livestock injured has granted right-of-way or easement to State by unfenced right-of-way for recreational trail New York N.Y. Gen. Oblig. N.Y. Ct. Cl. Act § 8 (McKinney N.Y. R.R. Law § 52 Law § 9-103 2000.) (McKinney 2000.) (Consol. 2000.) – RR liable if livestock injured by unfenced right-of-way but RR not liable for injuries to livestock resulting from engine frightening animal N. Carolina N.C. Gen. Stat. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-84 et seq. (2000.) N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 143-291 § 113A-95 (2000.) – Trails System Statute to -300.1 (2000.) – § 113A-95 limits liability for landowner who allows land to be used for trail by limiting “duty of care” owed to users to that owed to a trespasser

118 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX B

State-by-State matrix of applicable laws and statutes (cont’d.)

Recreational Use Trail, Rails-to-Trails Program, Recreational Government Tort Railroad State Statute (RUS) Trails System, or Similar Statute Liability Act Fencing Laws

N. Dakota N.D. Cent. Code N.D. Cent. Code § 32-12.1-01 N.D. Cent. Code § §§ 53-08-01 to -06 et seq. (2000.) 49-11-24 et seq. (2000.) (2000.) – history of statute found in – every owner or lessee of land Chapter 303, S.L. 1977 abutting any RR’s right-of-way – applicable to political may make written request of subdivisions of State owners/operators of RR to construct a fence N.D. Cent. Code §49-11-30 – RR liable if livestock injured by unfenced right-of-way Ohio Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1519.01 to -.02 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2743.01 §§ 1533.18, 1533.181 (Anderson 2000.) et seq. (West 2000.) (Anderson 2000.) – Recreational Trails Statute – Court of Claims Act – § 1519.02 permits the State authority to – applicable only to the State and acquire land on an “existing or abandoned” its agencies or instrumentalities railroad for use as a recreational trail Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2744.01 – no liability provision et seq. (West 2000.) – Political Subdivisions Act – applicable to political subdivisions of State

Oklahama Okla. Stat. tit. 76, Okla. Stat. tit. 74, § 1853 et seq. (2000.) Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 51, § 151 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 66, §§ 10 to 15 (2000.) – Trails System Act et seq. (West 2000.) § 141 (West 2000.) – § 1859 C makes it a misdemeanor – Political Subdivision Tort – every RR Corp. has duty to to damage adjacent properties Claims Act fence its road with a good Okla. Stat. tit. 74, § 3458 (2000.) & lawful fence – limits liability of landowners who permit the State to use their land for trails system

Oregon Or. Rev. Stat. § Or. Rev. Stat. § 390.950 et seq. (2000.) Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 30.260 to Or. Rev. Stat. § 608.310 (2000.) 105.688 (2000.) – Recreational Trails Statute -.300 (2000.) – every person owning or – § 390.980 permits the State to use funds to – § 30.265(2) pertains to State operating any railroad shall indemnify landowners adjacent to recreational and subdivisions erect and maintain good and trails for damage to their property caused by sufficient lawful fences on trail users for which the landowner was unable both sides of the RR line, to recover from the user causing the damage with exceptions Pennsylvania 68 Pa. Cons. Stat. 32 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5611 et seq. (2000.) 1 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2310 §§ 477-1 to -8 – Rails-to-Trails Act (West 2000.) (2000.) – § 5619(c) encourages the preservation of the – commonwealth trails, if possible, when a rail line is reactivated, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8541 creating a rails-with-trail et seq. (West 2000.) – § 5621 limits liability for landowners who – local agencies allow their land to be used for trails, trail, Pa. R. Civ. P. 2101 et seq. owners and adjacent property owners with the – commonwealth and protections similar to a RUS political subdivisions

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 119 APPENDIX B

State-by-State Matrix of Applicable Laws and Statutes (cont’d.)

Recreational Use Trail, Rails-to-Trails Program, Recreational Government Tort Railroad State Statute (RUS) Trails System, or Similar Statute Liability Act Fencing Laws

Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Law R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-31-1 R.I. Gen. Laws § 39-8-18 § 32-6-1 to -7 et seq. (2000.) (2000.) (2000.) – State and subdivisions – every RR shall erect /main­ tain fence along boundary lines of right-of-way S. Carolina S.C. Code Ann. S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-10 et seq. § 27-3-10 to -70 (Law. Co-op. 2000.) (Law. Co-op. 2000.) – Tort Claims Act – State and local S. Dakota S.D. Codified Laws S.D. Codified Laws § 3-21-1 S.D. Codified Laws § § 20-9-12 to -18 et seq. (Michie 2000.) 49-16A-91 (Michie 2000.) (Michie 2000.) – State – if owner of land abutting the road fences their property, except for the side abutting the road, the RR shall supply landowner with materials needed to construct fence not less than 4.5 feet high

Tennessee Tenn. Code Ann. Tenn. Code Ann. § 11-11-101 (2000.) Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-101 Tenn. Code Ann. § 65-6-301 §§ 70-7-101 to -104, – Trails System Act et seq. (2000.) (2000.) 11-10-101 to -104 Tenn. Code Ann. § 11-11-111 et seq. (2000.) – State Board of Claims Act – RR liable if livestock injured (2000.) – § 11-111 provides for consideration of – administrative claims procedure by unfenced right-of-way abandoned railroad for recreational trails against State – §§ 11-113 and 11-114, respectively, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-101 prohibit hunting and the use of motor et seq. (2000.) vehicles on trails – Governmental Tort Liability Act – applicable only to units of local government and not to the State Texas Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 28.001 et seq. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. Code Ann. § 75.001 (West 2000.) § 101.001 et seq. (West 2000.) to -.003 (West 2000.) – Trails System Act – no liability provision Utah Utah Code Ann. § Utah Code Ann. § 63-11a-101, -102(3)(c), -301 Utah Code Ann. §§ 63-30-1 to -34 Utah Code Ann. § 56-1-13 57-14-1 to -7 (2000.) (2000.) (2000.) (2000.) – Recreational Trails System Act – Governmental Immunity Act – RR liable if livestock injured – § 301 permits the State to enter into by unfenced right-of-way cooperative agreements with private landowners and corporations that specify the responsibilities for development, operation, and maintenance, including law enforcement along trails

120 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX B

State-by-State Matrix of Applicable Laws and Statutes (cont’d.)

Recreational Use Trail, Rails-to-Trails Program, Recreational Government Tort Railroad State Statute (RUS) Trails System, or Similar Statute Liability Act Fencing Laws

Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 443 et seq. (2000.) Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5601 Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, 12, §§ 5791–5794 – Trails System Act et seq. (2000.) § 3642 (2000.) (2000.) – does not specifically cover trails on active – Tort Claims Act – RR liable if livestock injured or inactive railroad – State by unfenced right-of-way – § 444 requires written permission to use land for trail that must address liability for persons or property and states that for fee simple or lesser interest in property, the State will hold harmless the private landowner who conveyed land – § 448 limits liability for public and private land owner Virginia Va. Code Ann. Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1806 (Michie 2000.) Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.1 Va. Code Ann. § 56-429 § 29.1-509 – Statute provides: “In furtherance of the et seq. (Michie 2000.) (Michie 2000.) (Michie 2000.) purposes of this subsection, a locality may – Tort Claims Act, – need written request by provide for the protection of persons whose – State adjacent landowner to the property interests or personal liability, may be Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-222 registered agent of RR to related to or affected by the use of such trails.” (Michie 2000.) require RR Co. to erect and – notice of claims to cities to maintain fence; once and towns request is made, RR liable if livestock injured by unfenced right-of-way Washington Wash. Rev. Code Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 79A.35.010 et seq. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.92.090 Ann. §§ 4-24.200, (West 2000.) (West 2000.) -.210 (West 2000.) – Recreational Trails System Act – State and subdivisions – does not specifically cover rail-trails on active or inactive railroad – limits liability for volunteers working with public agencies on trails

West Virginia W.Va. Code § 19-25-1 W. Va. Code § 5B-1A-1 et seq. (2000.) W.Va. Code § 14-2-1 et seq. (2000.) to -5 (2000.) – Rails-to-Trails Program – Court of Claims Act – § 5B-1A-8 relieves an owner of an abandoned – State railroad right-of-way from liability during the W. Va. Code § 29-12A-1 et seq. (2000.) interim period when it is being held by the – Governmental Tort Claims State for future development and Insurance Reform Act – § 5B-1A-9 adopts a RUS-type provision for – political subdivisions owners of trails and adjacent property owners under this article

Wisconsin Wis. Stat. Ann. § Wis. Stat. § 85.09 (2000.) Wis. Stat. Ann. § 893.80 (West 2000.) Wis. Stat. Ann. § 192.33 895.52 (West 2000.) – acquisition of abandoned rail property – claims against governmental (West 2000.) – no liability provision bodies or officers, agents, or – RR liable if livestock injured employees by unfenced right-of-way

Wyoming Wyo. Stat. Ann. § Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-39-101 to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 37-9-304 34-19-101 (Michie -118 (Michie 2000.) (West 2000.) 2000.) – Governmental Claims Act – RR liable if livestock injured by unfenced right-of-way

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 121 APPENDIX C: Sample Legal Agreements

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 123 APPENDIX C License Agreement, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the Mission City Trail

124 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 125 APPENDIX C

126 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 127 APPENDIX C

128 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 129 APPENDIX C

130 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 131 APPENDIX C

132 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 133 APPENDIX C

134 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 135 APPENDIX C

136 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 137 APPENDIX C

138 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C Easement Agreement with Conrail for the Schuylkill River Trail, PA

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 139 APPENDIX C

140 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 141 APPENDIX C

142 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C Lease and Operating Agreement for the Union Pacific Steel Bridge Walkway, Portland, OR

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 143 APPENDIX C

144 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 145 APPENDIX C

146 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 147 APPENDIX C

148 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 149 APPENDIX C

150 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 151 APPENDIX C

152 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX C

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 153 APPENDIX C

154 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned APPENDIX D: Photo Credits

PAGE DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, CREDIT Cover Riding alongside a freight train on the La Crosse River State Trail, La Crosse, WI, Suzan Pinsof I Baltimore-York RWT, MD, Jennifer Toole III The proposed Union Pacific RWT is feasible in parts and must be rerouted in others, Cupertino, CA, George Hudson III The Reading and Northern Railroad Company experienced a reduction in illegal dumping after the trail went in, Jim Thorpe, PA, Charles Denney V Trail designers worked withConrail designers to ensure that their interests were addressed, concurrent to negotia­ tion of the RWT agreement, Norristown, PA, Charles Denney VI Portland’s regional government, Metro, aquired the railroad property in the 1990s to allow for RWT development. Future Springwater Corridor Trail, Portland, OR, Barbara Plummer VII Setback of 7.6 m (25 ft) or greater often is needed for higher speed train corridors, Stavich River Trail, OH and PA, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy VII Narrower setback distances may be acceptable for short distances, as on this Union Pacific railroad bridge with slow-moving trains, Portland, OR, Mia Birk VIII Wrought iron fencing offers an aesthetically pleasing separation option. Mission City Rail Trail, San Fernando, CA, Ron Mathieu, SCRRA/Metrolink IX Dual track grade crossing, Burlington, VT, Craig Della Penna IX Undercrossing of Alaska Railroad Corporation tracks, Tony Knowles Coastal Rail Trail, Anchorage, AK, Andy Clarke IX Overcrossing of Union Pacific tracks, Eastbank Esplanade, Portland, OR, Mia Birk X Steel Bridge Riverwalk, Portland, OR, Mia Birk ii Traction Line Recreational Trail, Morristown, NJ, Craig Della Penna iv Trespasser crossing Union Pacific tracks, Del Mar, CA, Peggy Gentry iv 4,000 student bicycle commuters use the Libba Cotton Trail daily, Chapel Hill, NC, Jennifer Toole v Elliot BayRail Trail, Seattle, WA, Timothy Witten 2 Joggers on the BurlingtonWaterfront Bikeway, Burlington, VT, Craig Della Penna 5 Coastal Rail Trail.The trail is proposed to be located near the station, Carlsbad, CA, Peggy Gentry 7 The BLS-Lötschberg Railway produces a series of brochures promoting the BLS-Lötschberg Railway Trail, Kander Valley, Switzerland, Unknown 7 Reseau Verte along Canadian Pacific Railway mainline, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, François Vermette 8 A section of RWT in Perth illustrates typical design and construction parameters, including 3 m (10 ft) wide asphalt path, set back from the adjacent rail line, and a 1.8 m (6 ft) chain mesh fence with three strands of barbed wire, Perth, Australia, Michael Maher 11 Crossing the Metrolink track on the ATSF Trail, Irvine, CA, Peggy Gentry 12 Location of the future Blackstone River Bikeway along the PWRR tracks, Albion, RI, Craig Della Penna 13 Planned future site of the Burke-Gilman Extension along the BTR tracks, Seattle, WA, Timothy Witten 13 Burlington Waterfront Bikeway located along the Vermont Railway Company tracks, Burlington, VT, Eric Stachon 15 Future trail alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail extension adjacent to the Coastline tracks, Carlsbad, CA, Peggy Gentry 15 Columbus Riverwalk (Chattahoochee Trail) segment located along Norfolk Southern tracks. Columbus, GA, Michele Brown 16 Existing segment of the Cottonbelt Trail along the DART tracks, Grapevine, TX, Michele Brown

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 155 APPENDIX D

17 Future site of the Five Star Trail along the Westmoreland County train tracks, Youngwood, PA, Charlie Denney 18 Built portion of the Kennebec River Trail, Farmingdale, ME, Russell Spinney, Maine Department of Transportation 19 Riding alongside a freight train on the La Crosse River State Trail, La Crosse, WI, Suzan Pinsof 20 Lehigh River Gorge Trail, adjacent to the Reading and Northern Railroad Company tracks, Jim Thorpe, PA, Charlie Denney 21 Mission City Rail Trail along the Metrolink commuter rail line, San Fernando, CA, Ron Mathieu, SCRRA/Metrolink 22 Platte River Trail, Denver County, CO, Rails to Trails Conservancy 23 The 22-mile Railroad Trail located along the Lake State Railroad, Gaylord, MI, Suzan Pinsof 24 Schuylkill River Trail, Norristown, PA, Charlie Denney 25 The highly utilized Elliot Bay Trail parallels the BNSF switching yard along a portion of the waterfront, Seattle, WA, Timothy Witten 25 Location of the future Springwater Corridor Trail Extension along the Oregon Pacific Railroad, Portland, OR, Barbara Plummer 26 Current illegal crossing location over CSX tracks on Three Rivers Heritage Trail, Pittsburgh, PA, Charlie Denney 30 Living fence on the Waterfront Bikeway, Burlington, VT, Craig Della Penna 30 Beaten path made by children crossing tracks, Oshawa Creek, Ontario (Canada), Constable William Law, Canadian Pacific Railway 30 New trail next to tracks leads to track undercrossing, Oshawa Creek, Ontario (Canada), Constable William Law, Canadian Pacific Railway 31 Amtrak station bike parking being used to capacity, Davis, CA, Michael Kiesling 33 Adequate space along parts of proposed RWT, Cupertino, CA, George Hudson 33 Tunnel along proposed RWT. Trail will be re-routed in this section, Cupertino, CA, George Hudson 34 The Union Pacific Railroad planned track expansion led to a search for better alternatives, Davis, CA, Michael G Jones 34 Proposed site of Indian Head Trail, adjacent to Naval Surface Warfare Center Railroad, Charles County, MD, Jennifer Toole 35 Environmentally sensitive area on proposed Downeast Trail along the abandoned Calais Branch owned by the State of Maine. Rizzo Associates 52 Trespassing can lead to potentially deadly consequences. Lake State Railroad tracks, Gaylord, MI, Suzan Pinsof 54 Derailed train, Bourbonnais, IL, National Traffic Safety Board 58 Elliot Bay Trail, Seattle, WA, Timothy Witten 65 Setback and fencing along the Showgrounds Pathway RWT, Perth, Australia, Michael Maher 68 Grade separation along Schuylkill River Trail, Norristown, PA, Charlie Denney 69 At-grade crossing, Dixon, CA, Chris Gioia 70 Crossing treatment on the suburban rail network in Perth. Gates automatically close when train is approaching. Users are alerted to the presence of approaching train by flashing lights and audible bells. Gates remain locked until trains have passed, Perth, Australia, Michael Maher 71 Crossing at the City West Station, Perth, Australia, Michael Maher 71 Transit station pedestrian crossing, Beaverton, OR, David Lanning, Oregon Department of Transportation 73 Dual track grade crossing, Burlington, VT, Craig Della Penna 76 Steel Bridge Riverwalk warning sign, Portland, OR, Mia Birk 76 Transit station warning sign, Beaverton, OR, David Lanning, Oregon Department of Transportation 76 Warning sign, Kennebec Rail-Trail, Farmingdale, ME, Michael G. Jones 77 Active warning devices at Burlington Waterfront Bikeway track crossing, Burlington, VT, Eric Stachon 80 Appletree Park Underpass, Vancouver, WA, George Hudson 80 Platte River Trail, Denver County, CO, Rails to Trail Conservancy 80 Tony Knowles Coastal Rail Trail tunnel, Anchorage, AK, Andy Clarke 80 Trail-rail overcrossing, San Luis Obispo, CA, Bill Mulder, RRM Design Group 80 Bridge over Union Pacific Tracks, Portland, OR, Mia Birk 84 Buried fiber optic cable under Washington & Old Dominion Trail, Fairfax County, VA, Hugh Morris 85 Siding along site of proposed RWT, Kelowna, B.C., Canada, George Hudson 86 Steel Bridge Riverwalk, Portland, OR, Mia Birk 86 Harpers Ferry Bridge,Harpers Ferry,VA, Rails to Trails Conservancy 87 Single track tunnel on Lake Oswego Trolley Line, Lake Oswego, OR, Mia Birk 88 RWT designs must take endangered species into consideration, Victorville, CA, George Hudson 89 Tree-lined RWT looking north, Burlington, VT, Craig Della Penna 90 Lighting on Eastbank Esplanade, Portland OR, George Hudson 90 Trailhead Sign, Burlington, VT, Eric Stachon 90 Signing on the Railroad Trail, Gaylord, MI, Suzan Pinsof 91 Equestrian RWT users require special design considerations, Bourbon, MO, Meramec Trail Riding Club 95 Steel Bridge Riverwalk warning sign, Portland, OR, Mia Birk 100 Trail regulations sign, Santa Clarita, CA, Ron Mathieu, SCRRA/Metrolink

156 Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned